Oil pumps

Hi Woody, I'm looking forward to the pictures also.
dick_linn@yahoo.com I'll post them on one of my sites if you like...
Glad to hear it went well. Your results with jet sizes mirror mine. I settled on a #63 drill, which is .037". I also ran into issues with minimizing restrictions in the feed to the jets. It made a big difference. Can't wait to hear how it works with the bike running. I've not had any problem with lack of oil in the cam chest, the oil returning from the flywheel chamber via the timed breather seems to keep it all well lubricated. You may discover the same thing when you get it running.
Let us know,
Dick

Here are pics of Woody's pump test jig in action!!
Here is picture one, showing the basic setup, Woody can add further comments

This is image two, showing the drive from the bridgeport, and a return line catching oil passing through the mainshaft, at least I think that's what we're seeing, right Woody?

Image Three, Feed to Skirt oilers?

Image Four, Pressure under test?

Image Five, Squirting oil,

Image Six, more Squirting oil

Once you have your minimum squirter size selected, you can increase the actual flow rate (cc per min at same pressure) quite a bit by countersinking a chamfer on the back (pressure) side of the jet. Easiest way - just use the 60° (?) lead angle of a larger bit like 1/8". The OD of the chamfer will be the same size when the depth is the same. The only problem is that small changes in the angle and depth change flow quite a bit, so it you're trying to match F & R (not necessary, the front wants more) be careful and use a magnifying glass.

Dr. Dick, yes you are correct about pic 2. That is a rotating union to return the oil from the pinion shaft without restriction. All of the pics were taken at 1750 RPM. In case anyone wonders, the oil is ATF. I am working in an unheated garage with no realistic way to heat oil, and I had a lot of Mopar ATF that I don't need. I will be using HD 20-50 and the ATF seemed to be close enough to hot oil for a test.

Woody, you sneaky dog! You've got two sets of cases there One with the pump mounted, and another with the skirt oiler drillings.. I was trying to figure out the oil lines and saw the one line with the petcock in the line going off to somewhere and couldn't place it.... Then in the background of pic 3, you can see the drive coupler and shaft and a tiny portion of the other right case. Curious of the purpose of the Petcock, experiments in oil flow restriction?
DD

Hi Woody.
Am amazed by your work. Thanks for sharing.
Just finished the skirt oiler for my 45. Used air to pressurize an oil container for testing. Pressure tested at 30 psi. Experienced the same as you. The drop in pressure was almost 9 psi when using 1/8 copper lines. Changed to larger diameter lines and ended up with a pressure drop of 3psi.
GuS

The petcock is there to enable me to tell what effect on flow and pressure the skirt oilers have when I make changes to different parts of the system.

I am planning a piston squirter system for a project with some friends and wanted to gain 1st hand experience with flow through a small orifice and the effects of oil viscosity and pressure on such a system. I'll begin by thanking the previous contributors (Jim Casey, Dick Linn, Woody, et. al.) for sharing their valuable findings which have been a great guide. My experiments were conducted to satisfy my own curiosity and address the following elementary questions.

1. What volume of oil will pass through a given orifice at a given pressure?
2. How far will a given diameter stream of oil actually squirt?
3. What is the velocity of the stream at a given pressure?
4. How does oil viscosity affect flow through a small orifice?
5. What magnitude pressure loss occurs as you move downstream in a system from the pressure source?

I realize that we already have a relative feel for the answers to most, if not all of these questions, but the desire here was to better quantify such answers.

The test rig was very simple - a pressure vessel filled with a given test fluid (oil), pressurized with air, having a pressure gauge on the outlet followed by a discharge orifice (see attached pictures). I tested only one orifice size - 0.040" dia (flare fitting cap with hole drilled in it) - since this size is frequently encountered in this thread and in most recent factory production piston squirter applications I'm aware of. Connections and piping were all 1/8" NPT. To examine pressure loss between the tank and discharge point, two different lengths of 3/16" OD copper tubing (0.113" ID) either 19" or 9.5" were inserted between the tank and the discharge. There is no right or wrong size tubing or length for such an experiment, as I'm sure the selected tubes are too large or long for some of you and too small or short for others. The results from these sizes will nevertheless be informative and the trends will translate to other similar situations. When the copper tubing was fitted in the system a 2nd pressure gauge was attached at the end of the tube just prior to the discharge orifice so a comparison could be made between the tank pressure and the pressure at the end of the tube just prior to the discharge orifice. In such cases the 2 pressure gauges, i.e., tank and end of line, always read identical prior to flow starting (orifice plugged with finger tip pressure), but once flow commenced the terminal gauge dropped instantly to a lower value as shown in the attached plots.

The following 2 test fluids were used.

1. Blend - 5W-20 motor oil and WD-40 blended to provide a viscosity of ~ 16 cP, to mimic a 50 wt oil at a temp of 212F (ballpark internal hog engine temp). 50 wt oil has viscosity in the range of 16-22 cSt @ 212F.
2. Amsoil - 4-Stroke 0W-40 having a room temperature viscosity of ~ 100 cP. This oil was chosen because it was on hand, and provides an oil about 5 times the viscosity of the Blend.

Tests were conducted by filling the pressure vessel with test fluid, pressurizing to the desired tank pressure (5-20 psi), noting the pressure at the 2nd gauge if the additional copper tubing restriction was employed, and measuring the fluid volume discharged over a given period of time. In all cases only a single orifice was tested. In reporting the results (qt/min), the single orifice result was multiplied by 3 to represent the flow that would occur if 2 piston squirters and a pinion restriction, all being 0.040" dia were employed and fed with an unlimited supply of oil at the stated pressure. Stream velocity was calculated from the flow assuming the discharge was a uniform 0.040" dia cylinder. To determine the stream length of the discharged fluid the orifice was oriented to create a vertical stream, the stream directed up a nearby tree trunk, and a measurement made to the highest oil-wetted area of the tree trunk (worked from low pressure to high so wet line continued to climb).

Results are provided graphically in the attached link along with photos of the test rig. Some highlights of the experimentation are generalized below.

http://tinyurl.com/bvkp7b7

1. Relatively high flows (1-2 qt/min) occur when employing a 16 cP fluid at orifice pressures of 5-20 psi. Higher viscosity test fluid significantly reduces flow.
2. At low test pressure (5 psi), increasing oil viscosity significantly decreases oil stream length.
3. Significant pressure drops (60-90% loss) occur when a 3/16" copper tube is interposed between the pressure tank and exit orifice.

As one might surmise from the above, employing a straight 50 wt oil at ambient temp or below would reduce flow and increase pressure far beyond the data ranges presented above (very little oiling going on following a cold start with straight weight oil). At full operating temperature (oil viscosity of 15-20 cP) and an actual pressure of 10+ psi at the orifice, flow potential of the 3 orifices would likely exceed the pump capacity.

If there are any questions or clarifications required on any of the above information, please ask and I'll try my best to address them. Hope you find something useful in the above.